HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK ORGANIZATIONS

Bradley L. Kirkman Kevin B. Lowe Dianne P. Young HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK ORGANIZATIONS DEFINITIONS, PRACTICES, AND AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP

HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK ORGANIZATIONS DEFINITIONS, PRACTICES, AND AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK ORGANIZATIONS DEFINITIONS, PRACTICES, AND AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bradley L. Kirkman Kevin B. Lowe Dianne P. Young Center for Creative Leadership Greensboro, North Carolina

The Center for Creative Leadership is an international, nonprofit educational institution founded in 1970 to advance the understanding, practice, and development of leadership for the benefit of society worldwide. As a part of this mission, it publishes books and reports that aim to contribute to a general process of inquiry and understanding in which ideas related to leadership are raised, exchanged, and evaluated. The ideas presented in its publications are those of the author or authors. The Center thanks you for supporting its work through the purchase of this volume. If you have comments, suggestions, or questions about any CCL Press publication, please contact the Director of Publications at the address given below. Center for Creative Leadership Post Office Box 26300 Greensboro, North Carolina 27438-6300 336-288-7210 www.ccl.org 1999 Center for Creative Leadership All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. CCL No. 342 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kirkman, Bradley Lane. High-performance work organizations : definitions, practices, and an annotated bibliography / Bradley L. Kirkman, Kevin B. Lowe, Dianne P. Young. p. cm. ISBN 1-882197-46-1 1. Organizational effectiveness Bibliography. I. Lowe, Kevin B. II. Young, Dianne P. III. Title. Z7164.O7K48 1999 [HD58.9] 016.658 dc21 99-17230 CIP

v Table of Contents Preface... vii Introduction... 1 Defining and Considering HIPOs... 2 Existing Definitions of the HIPO... 2 A Review of the Components of the HIPO... 3 Self-managing work teams/sociotechnical systems... 3 Employee involvement/participation/empowerment... 4 Total quality management... 5 Integrated production technologies... 5 The learning organization... 6 Toward Common Ground: A Process Definition of the HIPO... 7 The Future of the HIPO... 9 Annotated Bibliography... 11 High-performance Work Organizations (26)... 12 Self-managing Work Teams/Sociotechnical Systems (23)... 26 Employee Involvement/Participation/Empowerment (32)... 37 Total Quality Management (25)... 55 Integrated Production Technologies (17)... 70 The Learning Organization (45)... 79 Author Index... 103 Title Index... 105

vii Preface This report was originally written for the staff of the Center for Creative Leadership in response to a request to obtain the latest thinking on what has been written about high-performance work organizations (HIPOs). We further developed this report to benefit a much wider audience. When we first contemplated taking on a review of the HIPO literature, we believed that our search would turn up a small number of articles and books on the subject. Contrary to this view, our colleague Barry Macy, at the Center for Productivity and Quality of Work Life at Texas Tech University, informed us that his center s library contained over 300,000 pages of books, articles, and cases that have been written on HIPOs over the years. Professor Macy also stated that over eighty percent of what has been written and documented about HIPOs has not been published. Upon proceeding with the review, we discovered patterns emerging around the components of HIPOs that helped us formulate ideas about a definition for the overall concept. So this report has two parts: the first contains the various definitions of the high-performance work organization found in the literature, a description of the dimensions that make up the definitions, a new definition that synthesizes the existing literature, and a word about the future of HIPOs; the second part of the report is the annotated bibliography. We are grateful to several individuals both inside and outside CCL who made this report possible. We thank Elizabeth Janak (Xerox Corporation), Fred Luthans (University of Nebraska), Barry Macy (Center for Productivity and Quality of Work Life, Texas Tech University), Susan Mohrman (Center for Effective Organizations, University of Southern California), and William Pasmore (Case Western Reserve University) for their helpful comments and assistance. We also thank our CCL colleagues Robert Ginnett, Gina Hernez- Broome, Richard Hughes, and Patricia O Connor Wilson for their input. In addition, we thank Marcia Horowitz and Martin Wilcox for invaluable editorial guidance.

1 Introduction High-performance work organizations (HIPOs) are many things to many people. Because of this, rigorous research has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the construct. Further, in practice, managers cannot begin to identify whether their organizations are truly HIPOs when there is no generally accepted definition. Written in response to a growing call for a common definition, this report contributes to the literature on HIPOs in three ways: (1) It aggregates existing research and organizes it into five component groups; (2) it provides a definition that integrates the diverse literature; and (3) it presents annotations of the 168 most current and important works. The first part of this book contains the current definitions of HIPOs, our integrated definition, a review of the components of HIPOs, and a word about the future. The second part contains the annotated bibliography, organized by the five components. The five components self-managing work teams; employee involvement, participation, and empowerment; total quality management; integrated production technologies; and the learning organization mentioned above were identified in the course of our research. Thus, the annotated bibliography not only reflects the available literature on the HIPO as an aggregation of techniques but also covers work that focuses more narrowly on all five of these component areas. As a consequence, the review of the components makes up a large part of this report. We discovered that the literature devoted exclusively to the overall concept of the HIPO is much less developed. This book is intended for those who want to identify and track the components of high performance. Practicing managers, scholars and researchers, and human resources professionals should find it useful, as will seniorlevel executives who are in charge of strategic planning and decision making.

2 High-performance Work Organizations Defining and Considering HIPOs In the pages that follow, we provide several existing definitions of the HIPO. From these definitions we identify and briefly review five components that we feel form the building blocks of such an organization. Finally, we suggest a comprehensive, dynamic definition. Existing Definitions of the HIPO Recently, a feature article in Training and Development stated that there is no single, agreed-upon definition of a high-performance work system, nor consensus about the components it should have (Gephardt & Van Buren, 1996, p. 22 [see annotation on page 15]). Further, in an annotated bibliography on the human resource aspects of HIPO, Beatty, Schneer, and Ulrich [Beatty, R. W., Schneer, C. E., & Ulrich, D. O. High Performance Work Systems: An Annotated Bibliography. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University, 1995] reported that out of sixty-five articles and books reviewed, only six articles (11%) actually included a definition. Gephardt and Van Buren (1996) state that existing definitions and approaches do share some common ideas. Companies organize workflow around key business processes and often create teams to carry out those processes. HIPO systems also include a number of human resource policies such as hiring, training, performance management, and compensation intended to enhance employee skills, knowledge, motivation, and flexibility. HIPOs involve fewer levels of management and new roles for managers such as coaching, integrating, and facilitating. Gephardt and Van Buren also argue that no two HIPOs are exactly alike. The specific form depends upon the context and the needs of the organization. Because there is no generally accepted definition, we decided to investigate definitions of leading scholars and researchers who study HIPOs. We found the following definitions in our search that summarize and synthesize all of the definitions that we discovered: (1) Creating flexible, high-performing, learning organizations is the secret to gaining competitive advantage in a world that won t stand still (William Pasmore, Creating Strategic Change: Designing the Flexible, Highperforming Work Organization, 1994, p. ix [see annotation on page 21]) (2) flexible or lean manufacturing methods and associated employment-relation practices (Jeffrey Pfeffer, When it comes to best practices Why do smart organizations occasionally do dumb things? Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1996, p. 35 [see annotation on page 95])

Defining and Considering HIPOs 3 (3) self-managed teams and decentralization of decision making as the basic principles of organizational design (Jeffrey Pfeffer, Seven practices of successful organizations, California Management Review, 1998, p. 96 [see annotation on page 22]) (4) Employee involvement, participative management, democratic management, and total quality management... (Edward Lawler, Susan Mohrman, and Gerald Ledford, Jr., Creating High Performance Organizations: Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management in Fortune 1000 Companies, 1995, p. 1 [see annotation on page 20]) (5) extraordinary capable people, working in teams, equipped with proper technology, focused on satisfying the customer and improving work processes (Joseph White, Developing leaders for the high-performance workplace, Human Resource Management, 33:1, 1994, p. 162 [see annotation on page 25]) From these definitions and our reading of the HIPO literature, we identified five dimensions or components of the HIPO: (1) self-managing work teams; (2) employee involvement, participation, empowerment; (3) total quality management; (4) integrated production technologies; and (5) the learning organization. Overall, the existing evidence on the impact of the HIPO elements and practices on the financial and nonfinancial performance of organizations has been positive. Companies such as Corning, Xerox, Eastman Chemical Company (Kodak), and New United Motor Manufacturing (NUMMI, a joint venture between General Motors and Toyota) have all implemented the HIPO with powerful results. Over thirteen percent of companies in the United States are now considered HIPOs (White, 1994). Next, we discuss each of the five HIPO components in more detail. A Review of the Components of the HIPO The literature strongly reflects the following five components of HIPOs. Self-managing work teams/sociotechnical systems. The focus and interest on self-managing work teams (SMWTs) has grown considerably since the original Tavistock studies of post WWII and the work of Fred Emery [Emery, F. E. Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, 1959] and Eric Trist [Trist, E. L., & Barnforth, K. W. Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 30, 1950, pp. 201-236]. Organizations have adopted SMWTs in greater numbers in a variety of manufacturing and service settings over the last ten years. Researchers have

4 High-performance Work Organizations conducted quality field experiments in studying the impact of SMWTs on various aspects of organizational performance. The empirical evidence now available suggests strong effects on employee attitudes (for example, job satisfaction, organizational commitment), more modest effects for performance outcomes (for example, productivity, quality, costs), and mixed results for employee behavior (for example, turnover, absenteeism). The literature is fairly mature regarding what support systems are needed for successful SMWTs, including leader behaviors, human resources policies, and organization-level structures and systems. The moderate failure rate of SMWTs in industry has been attributed to: launching teams without proper structural or system support, ignoring the fairness concerns of those involved in teams, failing to overcome the value of individualism in American workplaces, and implementing SMWTs in highly certain organizational environments or in non-interdependent work settings. Employee involvement/participation/empowerment. We combined these three literatures into one area because, depending on the level of each one, they can sometimes be viewed interchangeably. For example, employee involvement (EI) can be viewed at three levels (1) parallel suggestion involvement, (2) job involvement, and (3) high involvement depending on the exact level of involvement of employees. Participation could be placed between parallel suggestion involvement and job involvement. For example, employees might be asked to participate in a number of job-related decisions and processes. Empowerment, however, would be synonymous with high involvement (number 3 above). For example, employees are given a high degree of decision-making responsibility beyond simple participation in decision making. The emphasis on all of these levels is that employees are urged to individually play a larger role in their work environments. Regarding research, participation has the longest history, followed by employee involvement and then by the rather recent surge of interest in empowerment. Regarding empirical research on participation, many of the studies conducted have found effects for satisfaction and performance while others have found no effect. Researchers have identified different types of participation and have argued that different types affect different outcomes, and that this finer-grain analysis may be responsible for the mixed effects. Empirical results for EI have generally been positive although outcomes are usually higher for employees who voluntarily enter such programs. Due to the consistent line of research by a small number of scholars, a generally accepted definition of empowerment has emerged, and empirical tests have validated a four-dimension model and its effects on important outcomes.

Defining and Considering HIPOs 5 Total quality management. In the United States, total quality management (TQM) blossomed in the 1980s and has continued to be a widespread organizational process into the 1990s. However, TQM has not enjoyed an equivalent prevalence in the scholarly press. In a special issue of the Academy of Management Review, a set of articles reviews TQM and explores some of the reasons why the concept has not been studied more frequently. Those reasons include: (1) there has been a lack of theoretical development of TQM and thus few propositions exist to test; (2) a comprehensive TQM construct does not exist due to the multitude of quality programs and principles developed by quality gurus (for example, Juran, Deming, Ishikawa); (3) organizations are implementing a vastly distorted view of TQM leading to the lack of construct coherence; and (4) many other interventions are subsumed under the TQM banner. Because more attention has not been paid to TQM in the management literature, empirical studies validating the effects of TQM on important organizational outcomes are lacking. Several case studies and more practitioner-oriented articles that have reported empirical tests of the effects of TQM have been contradictory. The mixed findings have been attributed, in part, to the different definitions of quality and the lack of measurement of the existence of actual TQM processes. For example, of the ninety-nine studies published in academic and practitioner journals between 1989 and 1993 on TQM, only four percent assessed the degree to which TQM interventions actually were in place. Integrated production technologies. Integrated production technologies (IPT) is used here as an umbrella term for a host of manufacturing and service tools that seek to enhance flexibility, increase efficiency, or do both. These include but are not limited to advanced manufacturing technology (AMT), computer-aided design/engineering/manufacturing (CAD/CAE/ CAM), flexible manufacturing systems (FMS), just-in-time (JIT) inventory management, and, for some authors, total quality management (TQM). TQM is not discussed further in this section as it received treatment elsewhere in the report. A set of clear findings emerge from both empirical studies and case studies on the use of integrated manufacturing technology (IMT) techniques: (1) Success (capabilities and profitability) depends much more on the people involved than the sophistication level of the technology implemented. (2) Organizations seem to fail to redesign the organization in a way that leverages the potential synergies from implementing one or multiple IPT techniques. (3) An incremental approach rather than a plunge approach to IPT

6 High-performance Work Organizations investments is preferable with the return from investments in IMT following the familiar inverted-u curve with respect to performance. (4) There is a clear focus on competitiveness goals rather than short-term efficiency gains that includes a thoughtful consideration of how the technologies implemented relate to the desired organizational capabilities/advantages. IPTs must be adopted consistent with strategic intent. To determine that an organization needs to be more flexible fails to address what type of flexibility is required for competitiveness. Defining flexibility as product mix or changeover cost or product modification capability or production volume variability or types of materials used in the production process requires different types of technologies and different people skills/interfaces. In short, successful AMT implementation has a process and logic that requires more attention to management than technology. Until equal attention is given to structure, planning, conflict resolution, team functioning, and champion skill development, as critical to successful IPT introduction, success will continue to be elusive. The learning organization. The notion of what constitutes a learning organization and why an organization should want to become one varies considerably. Some authors suggest that organizations need to learn in an effort to adapt to their environment (internally focused first-order learning) while other authors suggest it is to gather information to anticipate environmental change (externally focused second-order learning). Some acknowledge both first- and second-order learning needs but are careful to delineate that the organization must develop appropriate and explicit mechanisms for each rather than one mechanism for both. Others seek to differentiate learning in organizations, which can be done by individuals as learning agents, from learning organizations, which require a collective discourse and can only be done by the organization as learning agent. Despite these apparent differences, several characteristics of a learning organization are common to almost all of these definitions. Common characteristics in most definitions of the learning organization are: (1) these organizations tend to learn what they value (for example, quality, efficiency, bureaucracy, customers); (2) a systemic rather than a functional approach to learning is preferred (that is, learning with strategic intent); (3) a structured methodology or forum for cross-functional dialogue that does not crumble to operational/financial pressures to reallocate human capital; (4) focusing on understanding parameters and scenarios rather than solution optimization; (5) viewing learning as a process (journey) rather than an outcome (destination); (6) creating learning forums with explicit goals in mind (for example,

Defining and Considering HIPOs 7 what is the EC, its implications, and evolutionary cycles); (7) developing systems for the fast and efficient transfer of information; and (8) embedding reasons for organizational successes/failures in the collective organizational memory. In general, organizations appear to be much more proficient at knowledge acquisition (development of insights) and knowledge sharing (dissemination of what has been learned) than knowledge utilization (integrating information into organizational memory for broad availability and generalizability to new situations). Challenges to building the learning organization are likely to include: (1) coaching employees to be systems thinkers; (2) increasing information conduits and reducing information buffers to encourage systems thinking; (3) developing problem-solving techniques to incorporate multiple perspectives and multiple avenues for accessing information; (4) motivating employees to value learning as much as technical competence; (5) developing explicit organizational learning mechanisms (OLMs) to capture insights in a way that facilitates dissemination; and (6) educating employees on the use and relevance of OLMs to organizational effectiveness. Toward Common Ground: A Process Definition of the HIPO From our review of the literature, one may form the impression that a HIPO simply consists of five components. That is, the HIPO is some combination of self-managing work teams, employee involvement, total quality management, flexible production practices, and a learning orientation. Thus, in attempting to identify a HIPO, one need only look for the existence of the five dimensions within an organization. There are at least two problems with such an approach. First, several studies comparing the introduction of highperformance work systems in U.S. firms have found that when the component parts were introduced in an integrated fashion (that is, hybrids), performance was higher than when the same practices were introduced as distinct practices (that is, hodgepodges). Second, merely identifying component existence ignores the most important factor that determines whether an organization is a HIPO or not high organizational performance. We define organizational performance as the achievement of organizational goals in pursuit of business strategies that lead to sustainable competitive advantages (Gephardt & Van Buren, 1996). To measure organizational performance more completely, one might use an approach similar to the balanced scorecard, which elevates nonfinancial measures to a level consistent with a traditional focus on financial measures.

8 High-performance Work Organizations Elevating nonfinancial measures may be increasingly important because financial measures focus on what has happened. This control-focused feedback is very useful in a relatively stable environment where continuous improvement of repetitive operations enhances performance. However, in an era of discontinuous change, shifting consumer demands, and global competition, measures that focus on what is changing (for example, percentage of total revenues from products introduced in the prior three years) or what will change (for example, number of new patents awarded or product markets entered/exited) may be more relevant to maintaining competitive advantage. Thus, another way to identify HIPOs would be to obtain measures on the various financial and nonfinancial aspects contained within the scorecard. The organizations with the highest scores on these indicators could then be classified as HIPOs. However, this method ignores the fact that performance does not have the same meaning for every organization. Within the scorecard approach, certain organizations will value certain indicators more than others, a perspective advanced by the creators of the scorecard. Thus, it would be inaccurate to compare organizations across the same performance indicators. An alternative approach might be to compare organizations on the extent to which they met the goals they set forth in the scorecard. However, this still fails to take into account differences in goal difficulty across organizations. So, if HIPOs cannot be adequately defined by examining organizational practices or the outcomes of a balanced scorecard, then how would you know a HIPO if you actually found one? We believe that the answer lies in the notion that a HIPO may not be a tangible thing that one can identify using dimensions or balanced scorecard measures. Based on our review of the HIPO literature, we believe that the HIPO is probably best defined as an organizational system that continually aligns its strategy, goals, objectives, and internal operations with the demands of its external environment to maximize organizational performance. Thus, it is not so much what a HIPO is but what a HIPO does continually and dynamically adjusting to its environment. Our definition also implies that the HIPO does not consist of the five components but that it utilizes the five components to various degrees to dynamically adjust to its environment. For example, a learning orientation could serve to increase the amount of information flow across organizational boundaries to ensure that an organization stays abreast of changing supplier capabilities and customer requirements. Flexible production systems might be used to quickly reconfigure internal operations to meet frequently changing customer needs and tastes. Employee involvement and self-managing work

Defining and Considering HIPOs 9 teams could be used to better tap the human resources of an organization with the intent of remaining flexible and adaptable enough to survive in turbulent organizational environments. Finally, total quality management could be used to better define supplier requirements and to meet exacting customer standards demanded by most buyers in today s marketplace. The discussion above assumes that not all organizations will use each of the components to the same degree. The choice of components, and the right mix of components, depends on an organization s environment. Selfmanaging work teams or employee involvement would be more appropriate in environments that constantly demand innovation (Lawler, 1994 [see annotation on page 62; see also Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995]. For example, IBM and Microsoft both make extensive use of teams and employee involvement to meet the demands of the rapidly changing environment for computers. Conversely, TQM may not be as suited for complex and dynamic environments that rely on breakthroughs in innovation and speed. The research on TQM has found that quality programs work best in high-volume, production-oriented environments (Lawler, 1994). Microsoft, for example, may find a good fit between self-managing work teams or employee involvement and their research and development areas but a poor fit between these and their production facilities. TQM may be more appropriate in the production area. In keeping with our definition of the HIPO as a dynamic process of adjustment to an organization s environment, different parts of organizations will likely face different environments. Thus, not only does the choice of HIPO components differ across various organizations but within organizations as well. The Future of the HIPO Our definition of the HIPO suggests that the various practices we have identified as components of the HIPO may not be utilized to achieve high performance in the distant (or even near) future. Indeed, as organizational environments continue to change so will the need to develop new organizational practices to meet these unforeseen changes. For example, selfmanaging work teams may go the way of quality circles, an important but no longer widely utilized organizational practice. Thus, the components of the HIPO are likely to change over time. While the components may change, one thing will likely remain the same. An organization s classification as a HIPO will depend upon its ability

10 High-performance Work Organizations to dynamically adapt to changing environmental conditions. Such an ability will likely be reflected in many of the measures we have described as being contained within the balanced scorecard approach. High-performance work organizations will continue to thrive only if they consistently meet or exceed the performance goals set by each organization and by the environment of the organization.

11 Annotated Bibliography The 168 annotations are organized into six sections. The first contains works on HIPOs as an overall concept. The following five contain works that consider HIPOs according to their respective component parts. These are: self-managing work teams/sociotechnical systems; employee involvement/ participation/empowerment; total quality management; integrated production technologies; and the learning organization. Each work is identified as one of the following: refereed empirical journal article, refereed theoretical journal article, refereed practitioner journal article, practitioner journal article, or book. We have discovered that there is a body of literature that exists for HIPOs and that it is fairly recent. References were derived from a search of both academic- and practitioner-oriented sources. We used both Psych-Lit and ABI-Inform databases as well as a table-of-contents search of selected journals. Like all reviews, our efforts were constrained by a number of biases. We did not intend to provide an exhaustive review of the high performance literature, which would certainly fill many volumes this size. What we did do was limit our search by using three criteria: (1) refereed, (2) rigorous, and (3) recent. Regarding the refereed criterion, we primarily examined literatures that had been subjected to quality review processes. Because refereed work is of higher quality, efforts were focused here where possible. One exception would be the literature on HIPOs, primarily because the overall concept (that is, more than each component independently) is in its infancy and has not had sufficient time to be thoroughly examined by scholarly researchers. Other exceptions might include key book chapters or books that truly capture the essence of one of the five components (or the HIPO altogether), or works that, while not refereed, have received a high number of citations in refereed publications. Second, regarding rigor, we included studies that were rigorous in research design and analysis. Generally speaking, by the very nature of the publishing process, most of the rigorous articles were also refereed. However, several pieces are included that, while not refereed, did utilize rigorous methodologies or were authored by seasoned researchers in the field. Finally, regarding recency, we chose research that has been published in the 1990s (up to January 1999). This time frame was chosen for two reasons: (1) most of the components of the HIPO had the majority of research conducted during this time, and (2) much work that was published before 1990